Suppr超能文献

在骨关节炎患者的治疗疗效试验中,根据耀斑强度分层可识别出安慰剂反应者。

Stratification of flare intensity identifies placebo responders in a treatment efficacy trial of patients with osteoarthritis.

作者信息

Scott-Lennox J A, McLaughlin-Miley C, Lennox R D, Bohlig A M, Cutler B L, Yan C, Jaffe M

机构信息

Piedmont Research Institute, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514, USA.

出版信息

Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Jul;44(7):1599-607. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200107)44:7<1599::AID-ART283>3.0.CO;2-N.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Studies evaluating osteoarthritis treatment often use increased arthritis activity ("flare") as a selection criterion, although no standardized assessments are available to quantify flare intensity and little is known about how this criterion affects treatment comparisons. This study evaluated the reliability of a flare assessment and how pretreatment flare intensity impacts conclusions on treatment efficacy.

METHODS

Using data from a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial (n = 182), we compared 3 osteoarthritis treatments with placebo in patients who met 3 of 4 flare criteria. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire was used to document levels of pain, stiffness, and physical functioning at baseline and at the final visit. Following factor analytic evaluation, the flare items were standardized and summed to create a flare intensity index, which was used to identify patient subgroups. Analysis of covariance was applied to compare change in WOMAC scale scores from baseline to final visit for assessment of treatment differences among the flare intensity subgroups.

RESULTS

The flare indicators appeared unidimensional. Analyses were stratified by tertiles of flare intensity. Mean WOMAC scores improved in the patients receiving active treatment who were categorized into the 2 lowest flare intensity subgroups, but mean WOMAC scores improved in patients in all 4 treatment groups (active and placebo) in the most intense flare subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Patients with higher intensity flares may be more likely to report substantial improvement in functional status regardless of treatment. Failure to account for flare intensity in analyses of data from pain trials with flare-based designs may inflate the risk of Type I and Type II errors in the interpretation of study results.

摘要

目的

评估骨关节炎治疗的研究通常将关节炎活动增加(“病情发作”)作为选择标准,尽管目前尚无标准化评估来量化病情发作强度,且对于该标准如何影响治疗比较知之甚少。本研究评估了病情发作评估的可靠性以及治疗前病情发作强度如何影响治疗疗效的结论。

方法

利用一项双盲、随机、对照试验(n = 182)的数据,我们在符合4项病情发作标准中3项的患者中,将3种骨关节炎治疗方法与安慰剂进行了比较。采用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)问卷记录基线和末次访视时的疼痛、僵硬和身体功能水平。经过因子分析评估后,对病情发作项目进行标准化并求和,以创建病情发作强度指数,用于识别患者亚组。应用协方差分析比较从基线到末次访视时WOMAC量表评分的变化,以评估病情发作强度亚组之间的治疗差异。

结果

病情发作指标似乎具有单维性。分析按病情发作强度三分位数分层。接受积极治疗且被归类为病情发作强度最低的2个亚组的患者,其WOMAC平均评分有所改善,但在病情发作最严重的亚组中,所有4个治疗组(积极治疗组和安慰剂组)患者的WOMAC平均评分均有所改善。

结论

病情发作强度较高的患者可能更有可能报告功能状态有显著改善,而与治疗无关。在基于病情发作设计的疼痛试验数据分析中,若未考虑病情发作强度,可能会增加在解释研究结果时出现I型和II型错误的风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验